Development record
the plugin surface claims the grounds verb refuses a shipped record so no terminal bucket carries grounds while three shipped intents do
the plugin surface claims the grounds verb refuses a shipped record so no terminal bucket carries grounds while three shipped intents do
Found by the round-5 ruthless review. Branch-introduced, and it is the standing class pointed at the corpus rather than at a mechanism.
commands/intent.md, and the same claim in RecordGrounds's doc, tells the
host that the verb refuses a shipped/ or superseded/ record, "so the
exemption stays a true statement about the corpus". It is not true of this
corpus. Three shipped intents carry a ## Grounds section -- itd-177, itd-182
and itd-188 -- hand-written by this branch's own migration commit.
The sharper half: the tree's state is unreachable through the tool that ships
it. abcd intent ready itd-177 --grounds "..." exits 2, so nobody can
reproduce or extend the migration through the documented path.
A defence exists and the reviewer stated it: relocating a pre-tooling
## Grounds (pursued) section from its spec is arguably not a BACKFILL, since
the text was authored at pursuit time and nothing was reconstructed. That
defence is credible. What it is not is written down anywhere -- the sentence is
unconditional about the corpus, DECISIONS.md records the floor rulings and says
nothing about migrating into terminal buckets, and the enforcement cannot tell
relocation from invention.
Remedy: one sentence naming the migration exception, in the surface claim and in the doc, or a DECISIONS entry that draws the relocation/backfill line. Not a silent contradiction.
Grounds
- pursued: we expect a claim about the tool to survive where a claim about the corpus cannot, because the corpus changes under a hand-written migration while the refusal does not, and a fourth terminal record acquiring a section without falsifying the sentence is what would show it
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2608301657357989 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | resolved |
| severity | minor |
.abcd/work/issues/resolved/iss-2608301657357989-the-plugin-surface-claims-the-grounds.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
mentions4
- dcn-26083000000000172026-08-30 — itd-179 round-5: a RELOCATION is not a BACKFILL, and the forward-only rule forbids only the second. Moving a pre-tooling `## Grounds (pursued)` section from a spec onto its intent (commit 09f7d91a, thirteen specs) put text authored at the moment of pursuit where it belongs; nothing was reconstructed, which is the whole of what "never backfilled" refuses. Three shipped intents therefore carry a `## Grounds` section — itd-177, itd-182, itd-188 — and the surface claim now says so instead of asserting the corpus carries none (iss-2608301657357989). The enforcement is unchanged and stays maximally strict: `RecordGrounds` refuses a shipped or superseded record whatever the provenance of the text, because nothing in it can tell relocated text from invented text, so the relocated state is deliberately not reachable through `abcd intent ready --grounds`. Rejected: weakening the refusal to admit a `--relocate` escape, which would make the distinction a caller's assertion rather than a reviewable fact about a commit.
- itd-177An intent's claims are typed and its scope conditions keep their identity across edits — the readiness gate refuses an intent that leaves a context claim unrecorded
- itd-182The record's discipline failures are themselves recorded — a lapse is a capture category, timestamped at the lapse
- itd-188Machine assistance in maintaining the ledger, without any context that holds both ledger content and a reading